mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: as in executive session, i ask unanimous consent that upon the reporting out of
the, or discharge of p.n. 1385, which has been referred to the committee on commerce, science and transportation, the nomination then be referred to the committee on armed services for a period not to exceed 45 calendar days, after which the nomination is still in committee be discharged and placed on the executive calendar. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar number 574 through 590 and all nominations on the secretary's desk, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the pred be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate
then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar numbers 486 through 498 en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the bills be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and government affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 433 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. khroeufp. the clerk: h.r. 433, an act for the postal facility of service at the ross a. mcguiness post office. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s.14 ol -- 1402. the clerk: s. 1402 a bill to allow acceleration tickets for the humanity program to be transferable. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed. the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration, the senate now proceed to s. res. 466. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 466 recognizing national foster care month and so forth. the presiding officer: is
there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 480 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 480, resolution supporting the designation of may 2016 at mental health month. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 481 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 481 recognizing the significance of may 2016 as asian pacific
american heritage months and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3011, a bill to improve the accountability, efficiency, transparency and overall effectiveness of the federal government. mr. mcconnell: i ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the upcoming adjournment of the senate the president of the senate, the president pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments
to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times: following each pro forma serks the senate adjourn until the next pro forma seelings. -- session. friday, may 17, at 12:30 p.m. tuesday, may 31, at 8:30 a.m. friday, june 3, at 1:00 p.m. i further ask that when the senate adjourns on friday, june 3, it next convene at 2:00 p.m. monday, june 6. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders
be reserved for their use later in the day. i ask that l fog leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up it ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the >> the u.s. senate today confirmed the presence nominee to be the us representative to the international atomic energy agency, and the senate continue debate on the defense programs and policy bills authorizing a budget for the pentagon and would require women to register for the draft. it also continues the prohibition on transferring guantánamo bay detainees to the us. the senate will be in recess
for memorial day with no legislative business until the senate reconvenes on monday, june 6. >> next, a hearing on the iran nuclear deal. some members of the house foreign affairs committee criticized the obama administration for not taking tougher action on iran human rights violations and ballistic missile testing. this is one hour 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing will come to order. last week, a commander in iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps made headlines around the world for boasting that iran could wipe out israel in less than eight minutes. remember, this is the same iran that secretary kerry is
promoting as open for business. sadly, in the four months since the nuclear agreement with iran, few things are surprised me. i expected iran to continue full speed ahead with its intercontinental ballistic missile program, and it has, testing to icbms remember, as the secretary of defense says, intercontinental means able to reach from there to here. we have also seen the testing of ballistic missiles, and in case we misconstrue their intent on the side of these ballistic missiles were the words, israel must be destroyed, in farsi but also hebrew. it is no surprise that iran's abysmal human rights record continues, executions
continue,, executions continue, the torturing continues. two more americans have now been taken hostage. and, it is no surprise that the agreement worth 100 billion plus is strengthening the revolutionary guards and others responsible for these abuses. i am not all that surprised that iran may hold its nuclear program. after all, it was this committee that exposed the agreement central flaw, the sunset clause with its nuclear infrastructure kept intact and key restrictions that expire. iran does not have to cheat to get the bomb. instead it simply must wait out the clock. but what is astonishing, and that is the reason for this hearing, the length the
obama administration has gone to accommodate iran, bad enough that the administration essentially rewrote counterterrorism laws through executive action or that it is hardly responded to the iranian missile tests. the administration told us the sanctions on iran's terrorism, human rights, ballistic missiles would be fully enforced after the agreement, yet it now says that nonnuclear sanctions would undermine the iran agreement. so, what has happened is that the white house iran policy now amounts to walking on eggshells. in another odd twist, the obama administration is going beyond the agreement to purchase material used in the production of nuclear weapons from iran. as one prominent expert summed up, we should not be
paying them for something they should not be producing in the 1st place. but the state department has taken its advocacy to a new and disturbing level by trying to persuade major non-us banks that doing iran related business is not only permitted but actually encouraged. as one witness told the committee, we are acting as the business development and trade promotion authority of the islamic republic of iran. international businesses must deal with the reality of an iran is islamic revolutionary guard corps controls the broadest of sectors across the iranian economy, not the administration's fantasy in which renney and behavior can be ignored and investment can be pushed into the country. they hear the warnings of
the financial action task force which sets the global standards, as stewart leavy, who was responsible, as we in a bipartisan way pass legislation over the years and this committee for sanctions, that former treasury official was responsible for much of the sanctions architecture that squeezed iran. as he wrote, wise washington pushing nonbanks to do what is still illegal for american bankers to do, with the international financial action task force says no banks, no banks should be doing. last week secretary kerry went so far as to say that european leaders are looking for ways to subsidize investment in iran. where does it stop? and iran is still pushing
for access to the us dollar, the world's top currency. given the administration's lack of resolve to stand up, we are right to pursue legislation to prevent that from happening, and i now turn to the ranking member for any comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman for calling this hearing. to our witnesses, welcome. i am grateful that the administration has congress up to speed on the iran nuclear deal. i know there are many areas where we can continue to work together on this issue. ambassador, it is good to see you again. assistant secretary, we are glad to have your voice in the mix, although we miss you in the balkans. and acting secretary, you are doing great work, despite the fact that you are doing your job with one
hand tied behind your back. we hear talk about doing all we can to curb rogue regimes and terrorist groups. well, bring your nomination up for a vote. it has been too long, and it should happen. commentary and analysis has become the latest. i am surei am sure at this point most of you know my refrain. i thought we could have done better, but now that it is in place we need to ensure its implementation and continue to hold iran's feet to the fire with respect to the regimes other dangerous destabilizing activities. today i hope our witnesses can help us cut through the speculation and political noisemaking around the deal and give us a clear picture of how things are moving forward. for example, we keep hearing because iran has not yet realized the anticipated
windfall from sanctions the administration is going around the world trying to drum up business. in my experience when something sounds like a political attack it is usually because it is. i don't think we should make any concessions beyond the scope of the deal, but it is perfectly reasonable to clarify. in my view businesses continue to shy away from investing in iran. with the history of corruption, money laundering, sr terrorism, human rights abuses and an illegal ballistic missile program it's a smart bad for investing which is why the financial action task force continues to designate iran as high risk jurisdiction. hopefully our witnesses can shed more light on why the sanctions has led to a
trickle and how the united states has responded as this aspect of the deal has unfolded. i would also like to hear about what we are doing, we plan to do to pressure iran on other areas of concern. as president obama wrote, make sure that the united states reserve the right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns which we fully intend to when circumstances warrant. i do not think we should be shy about slapping new sanctions on iran, again, as the situation and circumstances warrant. after the ballistic missile test last year the administration did impose new sanctions. that was the right thing to do. but iranian money continues
to flow to the t 15 -- hamas. has blah has stockpiled rockets. the assad regime, iran supports them. they can count on. in support, and we have intercepted ship after ship carrying uranium weapons. what is the plan? how we will the administration use the authority it already has? looking congress do to ensure this administration and future administrations have all the tools that they need? how can we and allies compel iran to change behavior? alec forward to hearing our witnesses thoughts on these areas and thank you for your service and testimony.
thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back quite pleased to be joined by very distinguished panel. >> i have a unanimous consent request. the iaea report on january of implementation. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> we are joined by minister stephen mull, and prior to his appointment the ambassador served as the ambassador to poland and executive secretary of the state department. we have mr. thomas countrymen. he is a career member of the senior foreign service, and he most recently served as the deputy assistant secretary for european affairs.
mr. adam szubin is acting under secretary for the office of terrorism and financial intelligence at the department of the treasury. he previously served as the director of foreign asset control. without objection the full prepared statement of these witnesses will be made part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit statements are questions or any other extraneous material for the record, and so i will ask the ambassadors if they would please summarize remarks and we will start with ambassador stephen mull. >> it is great to be back. i'm happy to report that so
far it has been implemented by all participants. it is important we recognize what an accomplishment that is for advancing not only our national security but that of our friends and allies, particularly those in the middle east. because of efforts to date security of the united states and partners has been enhanced in conversations with allies and partners around the world we regularly here support for the steel. as of implementation day in january iran had completed dozens of specific actions to limit, freeze, or roll back the nuclear program and subjected to greater transparency by the iaea include shipping out 25,000 pounds, 98 percent of iran's enriched nuclear material, cutting its centrifuge and enrichment program by two thirds,
destroying the core of the iraqi heavy water reactor which would have permitted the production of weapons grade plutonium. and iran's implementation together of all of these increase the time it would take to produce enough fissile material for nuclear weapons, the so-called breakout time from roughly two months to more than aa year. these actions were complemented by the historically comprehensive verification and monitoring measures specified. the -- now subject to the greatest monitoring and verification regime in the history of nuclear power. if iran should seek to breakout commitments such an attempt would be corrected. we have preserved our ability to snap back penalties that made this deal possible in the 1st place.
but as of now we have not had to implement those measures snapping back because iran is fully compliant, fully compliant with the terms of the deal. verified in february, and as i expect it again in the coming weeks. meeting the nuclear commitments lifting the so-called secondary sanctions on iran. in an effort to provide greater clarity to the public and private sectors, what sanctions were lifted and what nonnuclear sanctions remain in place, we have been participating in outreach with the public and private sectors at the request of our foreign partners and governments in order to explain us commitments under the jcp 08. as long as they continue to meet nuclear commitments we will continue to meet commitments on sanctions.
we are encouraged by implementation of commitment thus far and have recognized the jcp zero it would not resolve concerns and those concerns are still very much active. instead, this was specifically aimed at addressing the most urgent issue of verifiably ensuring iran does not have a nuclear weapon. thanks to our efforts we have made significant progress. and we remain safer because of those efforts. >> thank you, ambassador. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, i want to thank you for your service and in particular for this invitation. it is always an honor. the ambassador has laid out a progress and the successful implementation.
my bureaumy bureau is focused upon giving full support to those implementation activities, and among a number of functions i would emphasize helping to ensure that the international atomic energy agency as the independence, expertise, and resources needed for full implementation of the jcpoa. thanks to the support of congress, i am happy to say the iaea in fact has sufficient resources and expertise to do this mission in the future the size the iran mission. there are a number of other functions essential to us national security, and i would go into this administration and congress but the future administrations and congress is to ensure that the iaea continues to have those important resources for the implementation of this agreement and the full range
of its funds. it would be extremely valuable for the senate to confirm a highly qualified individual to be our full-time confirmed ambassador to the un missions in vienna. while the threat of a nuclear armed iran has been addressed through implementation of the agreement, we recognize that like every previous arms-control agreement negotiated in arms-control agreement does not change the full range of behavior of the partner or adversary with whom we are negotiating. and so there remains a need to address the full range of serious misbehavior by the iranian regime, in particular responsibility of my bureau to address the ballistic missile program as well as a number of other
proliferation related efforts in the conventional field as well. we do this through the rigorous implementation of sanctions, that is by designating in partnership with the department of the treasury those entities responsible for the weapons program. and we have designated every major entity and he ran associated with the ballistic missiles program. we will continue to do so, as new information becomes available. at the same time, i give you my personal opinion that it is not un resolutions or designations are sanctions that cause iran to changes calculus and interest in the ballistic missile program, but what we can do to slow and it's her and make their missile choices painfully expensive is rigorous enforcement, and we do that
not only in partnership with a wide range of us agencies but under the missile technology control regime with more than 100 partner countries under the proliferation security initiative and as a result all the legally binding restrictions on missile technology contained in un resolutions are successfully implemented, not to the point, and i admit this 1st, preventing iran from a continued interest in these programs, but i can assure you of our continued diligence and using not just the declaratory statements but actual tools of interdiction and export control to slow the iranian progress. and, of course, beyond my bureau's purview we work closely with regional partners including the gulf cooperation council and
israel to bolster defenses against the continuing military threat from iran. we have no intention of reducing our focus on other iranian programs, even as we continue with the successful implementation of the jcpoa. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss her implementation of the jcpoa. very soon after i joined the treasury department and 2004 we saw with alarm the progress that iran was making in its covert nuclear program and understood this was a national security threat of the highest order. from that time we have devoted literally tens of thousands of hours to address this threat. working with the
intelligence community to identify and track iranian front companies in the movement of funds through hidden accounts, with the private sector here and abroad to strengthen vigilance with respect to iran, working with law enforcement and regulators, working with diplomats and foreign counterparts to make clear to iran that the price of their nuclear program was complete isolation from the international community, and working with you in congress in a bipartisan effort to sharpen sanctioned tools, deepen impacts, and bring iran to the table. the accumulated pressure had its intended effect. iranian people rejected the course their government had charted. the jcpoa was a tremendous breakthrough representing a peaceful solution to what had been one of the world's most serious national
security threats. iran was a few months having enough fissile material for a potential nuclear weapon, and it was advancing. now the breakout time has been extended to a year. it is in our national security interest to ensure the jcpoa works as intended and stands the test of time, and it is important we fulfill all commitments made. iran is already seeing benefits. has been able to open bank accounts, gain access to billions in reserves, and oil exports have recovered to about one half a pre- sanctions level. that said, some companies and banks around the world continue to have concerns, some about their financial transparency, the designation of iran as high risk, others are noting
concerns about corruption as well as regulatory obstacles to conducting business command still other side the provocative behavior including its active support for terrorism and ballistic missile testing. as president obama said recently, iran must understand what every country understands, businesses want to go where they feel safe and can be confident transactions will operate normally. as iran pursues more business, it is incumbent to address such problems, undertake reform, and create an environment in which businesses feel secure. i want to be clear about what the still does not mean. with limited exceptions, the primary us embargo on iran remains in place, including prohibitions on us persons investing in iran and from
iran accessing us markets and banks. we have not promised, nor do we have intent, together on access to the united states financial system. additionally, we have maintained sanctions to counter maligned activities outside of the nuclear profile. iran continues to be the world's leading supporter of terrorism. under our current sanctions regime we have designated nearly 200 firms and individuals on nonnuclear grounds, irg see, subsidiaries, senior officials, front companies all of whom we are continuing to target and expose including major iranian defense and missile entities which are behind iran's current blissful -- ballistic missile work. since implementation of the jcpoa, we have continued to target new iranian actors including key supporters of
the ballistic missile programs and central money laundering individuals. i can tell you that after many years of targeting hezbollah, today the group is in its worst financial shape in decades. we having clear eyed and will continue to combat using the range of tools at our disposal including sanctions and by designating new target is appropriate. i want to thank this committee command i look forward to continued work. >> thank you, mr. adam szubin. i appreciate your work in terms of targeting hezbollah, the legislation that has been passed from december to the presence desk and your implementation of that is appreciated. you noted in your testimony, the united states has in your words, no plans to give
iran access to the us financial system. that has not been the source of concern. let me be specific. does the united states have any plans to offer iran the ability to access offshore dollar clearing facilities to allow for dollar denominated transactions, and is iran's ability to trade internationally or are there plans to allow the iranians to conduct large-scale dollar denominated transactions and dollar clearing in any form? your testimony, as i heard it, studiously avoided that question. help me put that to you. >> thank you for the question. i welcome a chance to clarify an area that has been the subject of confusion and concern. our primary sanctions in the us control what us actors
can do and what they cannot do. that governs the conduct of us actors anywhere in the world. a branch of the u.s. bank in europe and east asia has to behave like a us person here in washington or new york. .. it is, thankfully the international currency of choice for international trade. that means banks in europe, japan, china all hold euros in their book. we do not extend to those dollar bills and foreign actors are not under our jurors diction and can
give them to any actor. i just want to be clear as to the contours are our jurisdiction to offshore dollars. >> but that seems to have a different intent than the response the treasury secretary gave me when i asked him in the financial services committee this question. i asked the treasury secretary, pickett was two months ago, if he stood by his testimony during the agreements consideration in which we were assured they would not have access. instead of shutting the door right there, secretary lou said his focus was on making sure iran gets relief. in two months since, the president still has not responded to my letter on this question. so there so there has been ample time for the administration to bring absolute clarity to this question and the concern is that while iran would not be allowed direct access to the dollar, you could structure
a scheme offshore that would have similar impact. so, just remind you it is treasury itself, it's your department that has declared the entire territory of iran is a primary money laundering concern, that means that any financial transaction with iran or any offshore scheme that is set up risks supporting the regime's ongoing illicit activities, including ballistic missile activities. let. let me go to a question for assistant secretary. >> mr. chairman, what i just be able to clarify something. >> yes, you can clarify it but iran is pushing this, right? i read right? i read the translations of the iranian papers, i see what they are pushing for, but go ahead. >> i just want to -- thank you for the opportunity. secretary lou has made himself clear of the record, record, in public and of course we look for to
responding to your letter to be clear in writing as well. he has had exactly what i have said here today, i know he was looking for to me being here to be able to relay his views on this. i run will not have access to our financial system. >> publicly fair. but when i but when i asked him the question, the focus was on making sure iran gets relief. so, let me let me go to the next question in this is to assistant secretary countrymen. >> in your testimony you put stock on the new un security council resolution, 2231 and its provisions related to iran's ballistic missile program. now, it is well documented that before the deal iran was legally bound by un security council resolutions not to test ballistic missiles. here's the problem, the first
problem one that members of the committee are already aware of and that is the administration agreed to a change. instead of saying shall not, the change was iran should be called upon not to. all right. so that was watered down. but there is other language in there, new language, that focuses on iranian missiles at design, this is something frankly i miss, designed, designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons while it previously focused on mrs. capable of delivering nuclear weapons. so, what was the rationale for the rationale of using missile design instead of missiles capable of? if i could affect? >> i do not know the answer. i was not involved in the negotiations. i will get you an
answer my cam. i would. i would note that the new resolution 2231 does not change the substitute and prohibition on provision of any kind of a ballistic missile technology to iran. >> well wait, but you have the iranian foreign minister saying that that word in these negotiations, design, he's headed to meet seven months to negotiate so everybody knew what it meant. what they're meant. what they're saying now is that with the change iran should be called upon not to rather than not to, that they can go forward. with their icbm program and that is what they are doing. as we sit here, that is what they're doing. it is not doing. it is not as though they are hiding the intent, they combine that with the rhetoric death to death to america, death to israel. >> i do not believe iran has ever hidden its intent to
continue developing muscles nor has it slowed down doing so no matter what the administration took steps. >> but here's what we got. we have a situation now where the security council, i mean what we point to where we can say the security council now is taking action against iran's missile program, none that i can see. >> i understand that we have fewer rhetorical points to make. i do not focus on the rhetoric, i focus on the active effort to deny the export of technology from advance countries to iran. i understand that iran's interpretation is different from ours. >> but our difficulty here is that we have now given russia, or we have given beijing the ability to interpret this differently. we have forever now, a less effective constraint of iran's missile program than we have before. on top of that, we now see iran asserting this in the
international community and we do not see the pushback by the united states. this is the point i wanted to make two. my time has time has expired. i was at our ranking member mr. angle from new york for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. szubin, when congress was considering whether to oppose a nuclear deal with iran, with various statements from administration officials that iran's not nuclear behavior, which is the terrorist, human rights violations, advancing the ballistic missile program, that those things would be outside the scope of the deal. yet, since implementation day we have heard a different message. no new sanctions, we have heard that from the administration. no new sanctions even if they are outside the scope of the deal. so, can you you clarify to the administration's position because i thought that we were told that in their support, with
iran support of terrorism that we could slap additional sanctions on it and it would not to violate the jcpoa? if iran had launched missiles, ballistic missiles and we wanted to penalize them, that would not but heads with the jcpoa. it now we differently, so with the administration vetoed none knew none of sanctions against iran if the new sanctions are not intended to delist the entities? >> thank you ranking member. i'm sorry, let me also say when i give the answer with the imposition of nonnuclear sanction violation under the
jcpoa. >> i appreciate the opportunity to clarify the administration appears on this and i would also offer ambassador motive he wants to come in when i conclude and provide his view from the state department. our view has not been no new sanctions and since implementation day, it back to the contrary you have seen the administration announced multiple rounds of the new sanctions sanctions designations in exactly the areas you're talking about. iran support for terrorism, the ballistic missile to terrorism, hezbollah, hezbollah, we have been continuing on this path to knock out the key proxies the companies are using to procure materials and move money. we have been very consistent on that from exactly as you have said our statement announcing the deal and throughout including less than two months ago designations of the mahanta air, and new designations against the liquid propellant missile companies within iran that work under the shaheed a
mod industrial group. i think the administration's view consistently has been, there is no inconsistency with the jcpoa, if it is outside the nuclear space so long as it doesn't undermines, interfere with our commitments to fulfill what we committed to fill in the deal. then the question becomes very much what specific legislation looks at and what are the details. >> i think the president has the authority under existing law to sanction iran and the president has, which i support. i think it is not so terrible to have congress come up with new sanctions if we feel iran is a violating its agreements.
certainly in the launching of the ballistic missile, the chairman stoke spoke about that with the death to israel on it. to me that as a provocation. when they continue to support terrorist, that is a provocation. i think sometimes think sometimes it is important for the congress to speak out on these things. we have been having a lot of hearings on iran and the implementation of the jcpoa. some of our previous earrings, some of our witnesses have said, if the congress would come out with new sanctions it would just give it that little extra edge, it would send a message to iran that we are aware of what they're doing and we are not tolerating it. it is true the president could implement and has the authority to implement the sanctions without the congress acting, but i i really think it's important that the congress act. i would just hope that the administration would seem to
lessen its objection to congress coming forward with new sanctions. after all, when the jcpoa was put up another congress that we were told specifically that it would not affect further sanctions against iran for things other than their nuclear program, which would be terrorism and ballistic missiles and some other stuff. that continues to be our view. >> i do want to point out though that congress is sanction contribution continues to be very potent right now. i neglected to mention this so i'm glad i have the opportunity. when we announce new designations in the terrorism, human rights, ballistic missile, syria, yemen space that have to do with iranian actors, thanks to congress and thanks to your efforts though sanctions do not just touch u.s. actors. those sanctions have secondary or extra facts around the world which means that of a financial institution in east asia,
africa, africa, europe, the gulf engages in transactions with any of the irg see, the missile actors, actors, the human rights designated actors, thanks to congress they face the secondary sanctions, namely a cut off or a potential cut off from the u.s. financial system. those are supercharged sanctions and that is only thanks to congress's efforts. so though stand behind every designation that we issue, even since implementation. >> will that is a good point. that is by the chairman and i both feel so strongly that congress needs to continue to be involved. if we need to issue further sanctions it does not violate our obligation under the jcpoa to do so. i'm wondering quickly of ambassador has anything to add to that? >> no, thank you very much ranking member, i thinks it is been stated clearly and specifically that new sanctions on iran's behavior, outside the scope of the nuclear agreement would not be a violation of the jcpoa.
we have been very clear about that publicly as well as directly with our iranian counterparts when they try to make that argument. we have been very clear throughout the negotiations and as recently as my last meeting with iranians last week, that sanctions on such things as missile launches which are inconsistent with the 223 one, the weapons for inflation, dissemination, support for terrorism, will continue to have consequences from the united states government. there is no doubt about that in the ministration. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank. thank you for your very vigorous oversight of the iranian deal that you and the ranking member -- let me just a couple of points and then i'll ask a question or two. this week week as we all know, our nobel peace prize winning president left the lead goal arms embargo on a cool dictatorship in vietnam, a nation that has crushed dissent,
religious believers, the new york times asked him not to do it as did other editorial, he did it anyway despite the fact he made a statement and words are cheap in washington and they're cheap in hanoi as well. two weeks ago at a hearing right here with mrs. lou, the wife of nguyen bandai, a human rights defender i had meant in 2005, tremendous man. he was fighting for fundamental human rights, he is in prison. many of us say mr. president of your to give something, please ask very specifically for the release of these prisoners and not just give all and get nothing in return. the ministration officials repeatedly testified that the deal in no way would impact our pressing iran on human rights, yet the administration is only sanctioned one iranian official for human rights abuses since
they started negotiation. iran, like, like vietnam is a co- dictatorship that uses torture to hurt and even kill. why is that the case? why is there not more robust for human rights? secondly, credibility and messaging, even if it is clever and aggressive needs to be honest. ma fifth article says highly disturbing about the selling of the iranian deal to the press, congress, and american people. the piece the new york times piece noted that the narrative that was wrote shape the story of an iran tail that began in 2013 with a moderate faction inside led by the iranian regime that beat hardliners. the times points out that was actively misleading. it was to convey an impression that people would then follow up and say, things have changed.
they break in the article that we quote created in a chamber, an onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. wrote said they were saying things that validated that we had given them to say. he also points out that he was able to spoonfeed 27-year-old reporters who knew nothing about this form policy and then they, with the so-called experts in the echo chamber. gentlemen, that is not quick to do a deal. it ought to be honest, it should be transparent. when you do things like this you are saying, you're dipping the chairman, you're duping a ranking member. i too, i felt the sense that we missing something here? the more we look at the deal, on the human rights pieces you can speak to that. what is your view of this new york times magazine piece? finally, ambassador the last time you're here i asked you very specific question about the iranian material, you said it had been taken out and put on a russian boat vessel and that we
did not know where went, do we know where it is now? has there been a u.s. validation as to its whereabouts and whether it's under lock and key? >> thank you very much congressman smith for those very good questions. on human rights, there has been no doubts about the strength of u.s. feeling of this very disturbing human rights situation. we have made that very clear publicly and repeated reports whether on our religious freedom report, human rights report, i can affirm to you that in every meeting in which i participated with secretary kerry with iranian counterparts we have made very clear our concerns. in fact, it, it was those concerned that really motivated our effort to get every human rights violation is a serious one, we are most concerned with the human rights of americans are violated. sorry concern about that
motivated are very hard work to with the release of american detainees in iran earlier this year. i pledge to you, the human right is outside the scope of the nuclear agreement, i know secretary kerry feels passionately about these issues it will continue to remain engaged. as opposed to the transparency, the negotiation of the agreement. i can tell you that i have worked in the foreign service for more than 34 years now, i've never seen an international agreement that is had greater transparency than the iran nuclear deal. it was released in full, to the public on the very day -- >> i'm almost at a time, we cannot read the iaea inspection regime could we? i mean i don't know what they're doing, do we take them at their word, their good group. transparency has a little asterix by it i would suggest. >> while they continue to report and will continue to do so.
we brief the congress dozens of times throughout the negotiations and since then we are available in open close session to do so. finally your question about the in rich material that was removed from iran to russia. i was in russia last month and in fact i can confirm that the material is secure in russia. there is no risk of its further proliferation. i'd be very pleased to brief you in a close session on more details about that if he likes her. >> okay, we're gonna go to regiment of california. >> people in this country want us to get along with everyone around the world. we long for peace and there are those who say that sanctions contradict that. but when you look at what iran has done in syria, husband or in, perhaps a million people killed by assad with funds
provided, weapons provided, thugs provided to the iranian government when you see people killed by barrel bombs and gas, we realize that the right response to the iranian regime cannot be cooled by a. -- this house was united by the iran deal. and thanks to you and your predecessors you proved that they worked by working hard to make sure that they worked. some believed that the sanctions got us a good deal, some believe that sanctions would have gotten us a better deal. the only agreement is that sanctions work. i join with the ranking member and saying that we ought to have new sanctions and abbasid or, thank you for clarifying that will happen. i know know the department of treasury does additional designations so you are doing your job, we need to do our job by passing statutes.
ambassador, is it correct to say that the administration's view is that simply reauthorizing and extending the iran sanctions act will in no way violate the jcpoa? >> to be honest congressman, we are aware of interest in this house and truck congress in general to reauthorize the highest they. we do not believe we need to act on it now because it is valid through the end of this year -- >> sometimes congress likes to get our work done. i i do not ask you, the house schedule. we might want to get her work done sooner or later. is it it a violation of the jcpoa to simply keep our statute going the way it was the day the jcpoa was assigned #speemac i would be hesitant to speculate because i know under previous efforts to re-extend it there has been other things to add onto that --
>> published in the exact language that was existed on the day the jcpoa was signed. would that that be a violation of the jcpoa? >> again sir, we would have to look at what was actually published. >> you know what's published, you, you don't want to answer the question. a technical legal question, you talk about branches of u.s. bank, does that apply equally to subsidiaries or does it depend on how it is legally authorized? >> it does depend. >> do you need legislation saying that the u.s. bank that owns assisted subsidiary would be subject to penalty if it allowed its subsidiary to do what its ranch cannot do? >> so the distinction does exist and that is not unique to iran. but i can tell you in practice, i do not know of a single subsidiary of the u.s. financial institution that is considering doing this business, given their global platforms.
>> i am not aware of a problem either, but new legislation would be helpful. you referred to mohammed air, congressman and i sent a letter to the un congress saying that you should desolate mohammed air under un antiterrorism sanctions. mohammed air air cannot fly to europe or asia without ground service. it is now getting ground service from two companies, airport handling which is based in italy and ahs group which is based in germany. now, these same service companies also service u.s. airlines, put aside the terrorist risk of having the same handlers do both and with the treasury department consider listing these two airport
handling companies for doing business with air mohammed? >> and thank you you very much for your focus on this issue. we do not comment on who we might designate in the future but i want to say the continued ability of mohammed air to fly around the heirs of it was a legitimate airline is something i raised in every i visit a. i do not believe it should be treated like a regular airline. >> well, the way to do it would be to designate these handlers then you might not mention their names but i just did and i . out that reference in the ukraine ask us for so much, you'd think that they would have listened to you when you made that point and as we made the point here. we have 33 major auto manufacturers including theater, chrysler, and mercedes investing in auto manufacturing in iran. it is only a matter of time for the products of these investments which are also be made by volvo will be used by the i rgc, would investing in
auto factories that are producing transportation for the i rgc be sanctionable? >> any type of material support to the i rgc would be sanctionable. >> what what if you build an auto factory that sells its trucks to the i rgc? >> typically, what we are looking for we are going to be designating the companies to see that it is witting or colluding with designated terrorist group. investment in a firm that creates cars that are subsequently appropriate by the area rgc would be -- >> not appropriated, just sold. you can't say that you not cooperating. my auto dealer cooperates with my, i take my current disservice is a very cooperative guy. are you saying that automated
fracturing facilities that sell tracks to the higher gca are going to end cooperative? >> no. although i might need to get to the name of your auto dealer because i don't have that experience. what i'm saying is that what we are looking for and going after new designation targets it is those we are working with the designated entity, if we see companies that are propping up the irg see weather with autos, funds, weapons, -- >> i would ask you to look at these investments. i would ask you also that in addition to sanctioning those, warning those who are thinking of doing the wrong thing, whether you choose to do it publicly or privately, and i look for to giving you the address of fiat, chrysler, volvo and mercedes. i you'll back. >> thank you mr. sherman. i think your point is that more banks, more ticketing agents and more companies that are providing support for johan air should be sanctioned. we go now to mr. roebuck or of
california. >> think very much mr. chairman. i would like to thank you and the ranking member for taking very seriously the responsibility that we have to oversee what we disagreed on with you in terms of the congress headed great with you on this agreement with the regime in iran. the jcpoa was the purpose, i take it was to basically prevent iran from it some point obtaining the capability of bast destruction on the government that it considered to be under the command of the great state, meaning israel in the united states and anybody else who
disagrees with them. so, they, we did not want them to have this right to obliterate their enemies, at least not the rights but the capability and this agreement was supposed to prevent that. today we have three witnesses who are basically saying that it was a good agreement and it has brought us to a safer world. what is concerning to me is when we go back and as the chairman has pointed out that the agreement itself has flaws and perhaps unintentional flaws. . . . . committee
>> may well have contained what i call weasel words. i was a journalist and it it is very easy to find out when someone is really trying to lie to you without lying to you. what they do is put something n in -- they word it in a way that it appears to be accomplishing something it is not accomplishing. as the chairman pointed out in his questioning that the actually words were changed to make them less infenforcable.
shouldn't that be a warning sign? how do you explain that? the chairman had two or three examples where, for example, all right, let's go to the one i will ask you about. basically we have a situation where a rocket is designed and as long as it is not designed to c carry a nuclear weapon, because of the weasel word, they can obtain that delivery system as long as it wasn't designed to be a nuclear weapon's tlifshy system. why was that changed? -- proliferary -- >> i do not agree this is a
dramatic difference in the effect of the resolution. iran is not -- >> it is not a dramatic difference. in one wording it absolutely prohibited them from getting a rocket and after the wording it now permits them to have it because of the strict definition of the wording they have an opening to poses a nuclear weapons delivery system. that is not dramatic? that is huge. except it has been hidden from weasel words. there >> there is a remaining prohibition. >> it wasn't technology that
can do that. if it permits them to drop a nuclear weapon in washington, d.c. with a missile as the delivery system. you don't call that dramatic? that is very dramatic, and i think the people of the united states, and we, have been disserved. there has been a disservice to us by this type of deception. a weasel word is a deception to make people think you are accomplishing something you are not accomplishing. the interpretation -- this isn't a problem of interpretation. this is a problem where a negotiation failure and we have reached on agreement with them meaning the regime that murderers their own people and we reached agreement with them
and they know it will permit them to achieve their objective. this wasn't a good treaty to begin with. i appreciate your testimony. but obviously i disagree with it. >> we go to mr. jerry connelly of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome to our panel. ambassador mull, the iran agreeme agreement addressed their support for hezbollah; right? >> no. >> they addressed the issue of money laundry? >> no. >> syria and assad support some? >> yemen? >> no, sir. >> death banning any further expression of death to america or death to israel. assu surely we addressed that in the
agreement. >> no, sir. >> what did the agreement address? >> limiting iran's capability to develop fissile material to develop a nuclear weapon. >> surely in the cold war, with the soviet union, we had a different model and addressed every negative behavior in every agreement including in in the reagan administration. is that not correct? we addressed every aspect of soviet behavior unlike this agreement. >> no, sir, that is not correct. >> let's get to this agreement. did it require iran to modify the iraq heavy water research reactor and fill the reactor with concrete? >> yes, sir. >> did they do that? >> yes, sir, they did. >> did it require the reduction of installed centrifuges from
19,000 to 194? >> yes, sir. >> did they achieve that? >> yes, sir, they did. >> did they reduce their uranium enrichment? >> yes, sir. >> and you witnessed in russia where it is being stored? >> i conferred where it is being stored. >> did they agree the limitation on the centrifuges and mills be allowed under surveillance? >> yes, sir. >> have they complied? >> yes, sir. >> has the international atomic agency verified this? and our government?
>> yes, sir, they have and we have. >> really? i have to admit -- we have had over 30 hearings on this and i cell you, i was worried and had trouble sleeping when i listened to my colleagues predict stealing, cheating, evasion, and i hear you tell me, well, maybe they wanted to do that but they didn't. and so now that we are having hearing on compliance we are talking about everything but compliance. we are talking about other behavior which is to be cond condemned. by had way, did the agreement prohibit any further u.s. sanctions? are we prohibited under this agreement for looking at new sanctions on unrelated behavior?
>> that is correct, sir. >> we could entertain other sanctions for their support for hezbollah, for example. >> yes, absolutely. >> our putting sanctions on mohan air? >> yes, sir. >> the gentlemen asked a question earlier on -- would you like an answer to that? the gentlemen will withhold the time -- >> otherwise, i would. if the chairman gives me time that is great. these are a smoke screen from a not addressing the main issue and the other argument used, which is clever but flawed, is perfect is the enemy of good. the fact that it is not imperpetuity. we could not achieve iran forever for swearing any nuclear ambition means this is flawed.
awas that in the cards? -- was. >> we believe it is an achievement and we believe our allies in the region are safer because of the agreement and implementation of the greechlt. while -- agreement -- it is true it expires after certain periods, iran's commitment and access to the atomic agency is important. whenever the iaea believes that iran is moving to develop military application for its nuclear program it will report
as such regardless of when that happens. we have every capability through law and previous executive orderers to respond immediately and put back in place the very pressures that brought about this deal in the first place. we are confidant we have the tools to make sure the security from this deal is long-lasting. if it is not, we can turn the tables and go back to the status quo. >> mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you. i yield ten seconds to my colleague from california. >> just to answer the point which was yes. in the reagan administration it was different. the fact is in the reagan administration our goal was to bring down the soviet union and as we negotiated we have efforts
to bring that government which is what we should be doing with the mullah regime and are not doing. >> thank you. i want to thank the ranking member elliot ingle. i was grateful to vote with both of them opposing this dangerous deal. as we hear more and more about it sadly it becomes more dangerous. it is so sad that we have a mullah regime which is repressing the dynamic people iran. they continue to proclaim death to america, death to israel. that has not changed. i just find it incredible. my concerns, ambassador mull, have been verified through the iaea report and that is in early march the head of the international atomic agency disclosed certain agreements reached under the dangerous deal
limit inspectors from publically reporting violations by the mullah regime. the director general amana of the iaea which is responsible for making sure iran complies with the agreement told reporters his agency is no longer permitted to release information about iran's nuclear process including there amounts of low and enriched uranium, the nature of centrifuge and rotor manufacturing and research and development activities. why would the administration agree to limit ieae reporting? why has the reporting been constrained? what specific component of the deal or unsecurity council resolution limits the reporting? are there any americans or
canadians serving as inspectors? >> carson, thank you for those questions. i was in veena last week and i believe those press comments attributed to him are inaccurate and misinterpreted. it is quite clear that the iaea will be reporting every three months on the status of implementation. in terms of the level of details, i agree in the last report there was less detail than in previous reports and that is because the iranian nuclear program is significantly smaller than what it was oza result -- as a result of this deal. the iaea confirmed iran was within the limits to which it committed and the director gener general assured me they would continue to address the forthcoming reports whether or not iran is complying with every element of the deal.
so, i think you can count on a full reporting to continue from the office. >> but clearly it was stated it is devoid of details about critical implementation issues. whether it is low or not, it can stay low or nonexistence including the amounts of low enriched uranium and the nature of centrifuge manufacturing and research of centrifuges. mr. countryman, the development of missile technology and testing to me is incredible. it is very revealing. there was only one reason you would be developing inter continental missiles delivery and that is to deliver a weapon. we have had iran testing a
missile in hebrew so people who would be affected understand as cited. in hebrew it is stated israel will be wiped off the map. this is on a test. how can we possibly trust a regime that makes such defiance in the aftermath of the deal. >> i don't trust them further than i can spit. >> great. what measures are there? i am glad i worked with congressman seth molten and we have a requirement for the missile testing. is there anything in place to let the american people know what is going on? >> i am sorry what is going on? >> to identify a missile test and what the implication of the missile test is by iran. >> yeah, there is a lot of information. some of which is not appropriate for this forum but we are always
prepared to brief members on the full range of information that we have about iranian missile tests. >> american families are at risk and they need to know. i yield the balance of my time. >> mr. david from rhode island. >> i appreciate the testimony with respect to the compliance. i think for many of us who supported this deal we are pleased compliance with the requirements have been met or that iran has taken the steps required. i think part of the challenge for us is we were told during this process that getting the nuclear issue off the table was so critical and that we could expect iran would engage in additi additional destabilizing activity and people suggested the resources we would have access to and political needs the regime would have would cause them to be worse in terrorism, human rights and other areas.
we were assured this would give us an opportunity to push back hard because of the danger of the nuclear iran off the table. i was persuaded by that. i am interested to hear the administration's efforts with respect to pushing that card and i want to begin in the area of human rights. what has the administration done since the signing of the jcpoa with regard to imposing sanctions on human right violators in iran? there has been an increase in human rights violation i think in part of as the regime to show they are still in charge despite this agreement. we have seen an increase in human rights violations. what has the administration done since the joining of the jcpoa with respect to human right violations in iran? if anything. >> congressman, thank you.
the obama administration is deeply concerned about the human rights issues in iran and in confronting that we have a variety of tools. sanctions are part of that. >> i should have been more precise. i know you said you raised it in meetings has the administration done anything with the imposition of sanctions on any entity with respect to human recognizes violations? >> there hasn't been a specific sanction on human rights cases since the signing but we have managed to address human rights concerns by, for example, getting americans out. >> i appreciate that but the existing regime hasn't caused the administration to put an a single additional sank because of human rights. there is a lot of talk about additional sanctions and everyone acknowledges jcpoa
deals with nuclear sanctions and non-nuclear sanctions are a tool. you expressed concern about the overuse of sanctions and that sanctions can impose costs. are there circumstances in which you think we should be imposing additional sanctions on iran? particularly with the ballistic missile testing. it is a violation of 2231 and if additional sanctions are not a useful tool, what do you suggest we do to dissuede or put pressure on iran not to engage in this nefarious activity? >> thank you. i want to clarify the quote you a are referencing about the potential overuse of sanction. as we move into a new
administration and how to use this tool, the tool of sanctions, on the executive and judicial side. i think sanctions are a key piece with the ballistic missile program. i think we need to keep the pressure on. i find those brokers and agents who are helping to mask the ultimate end user and that is who this group i mentioned earlier, that is who iran's missile agencies are using to get the parts they need in violation of un security council. the more we can expose those actors the better. that public effort isn't the only thing we have going. there are strategic things going on and we have our own version in a financial sense which is
payments being made to broker procurement of dual use items. we are able to block the payments mid-transfer which causes real damage to the procurement effort but can sometimes park a lot of useful intelligence from the individual. >> am i correct it would be useful to send the message that congress and the united states is serious about stopping the gross violation of human rights by enacting additional sanctions in a non-nuclear spear as an expression of congress and the american people strong condemning of ballistic missiles and human rights violations? it would strengthen your hand for the iranians to know there are members of congress that feel strongly about this and we are committed to using all of our tools, outside of the jcpoa,
to really effectively dissway them and persuade them and impose cost on them for engaging in ballistic missile testing and human rights violations? >> i think the focus on the non-nuclear threat has been and remains essential. frankly the fact it has been a bipartisan focus has been extremly powerful and gives us leverage in talking to the iranians and international i allies. as a technical matter the deal is talking about nuclear sanctions. as a practical matter, if legislation were to undermine the deal by taking off commitments we put on the table that would be a problem. we don't want to see new legislation interfere. >> mr. the the the --
>> ambassador mull, you said the jcpoa has been implemented and increasing breakout time of two months to a year. it is your estimation they went from 12 months and we gained ten months? >> yes, sir. >> you always said we have preserved our ability to snapback penalties. you further said at the request of our foreign friends and i am paraphrasing we have been explaining the lifting of the sanctions. so that discussion time, that the going to take a month or two? >> we try to be responsive to congressman whenever our international partners express questions on law and not jt on iran. since the agreement in january,
there has been a flood of request mostly from the world financial centers in asia. >> that is my answers. a flood request from around the world. in the event iran would get aggressive and start doing things we felt a snapback sanction was in order here it would take time, would it not, to explain to our friends around the world as to why we think they violated it and action is necessary? >> i don't think it would take much time >> how much time do you think it would take? >> to notify the world of an iranian violation? >> well that and explain and get their buy-in on why snapback sanctions were necessary? >> i think, certainly, if we decided to snapback we would make an instant announcement of that. i could not speculate if there are questions from -- >> it would take a month or two. >> i am going to leave it at that. it is not going to be instant.
i think snapback is the wrong word. mr. countryman, you said it is not sanctions but resolutions -- or not sanctions or resolution but trade control. you didn't read from your remarks i noticed you spoke from the heart. so if trade control was really the force we needed didn't the sanctions have them going in the right direction? they were hurting. >> if you will give me a moment. i make a distinction between sanctions intended to impose economic cost and change behavior and that is something my colleague suzbin specializes in and strategic trade control which is how the united states cooperates with countries around
the world to insure states of concern and non-state actors don't get their hands on dual use technology whether it is nuclear, missile or anything else related. >> you are saying the force was the trade control of our friends ambassador mull and i were talking about? >> there have been a number of inconstitutions in place years. the missile technology control regime, 40 most advance countries on ballistic missile technology that cooperate against providing that kind of technology to countries like iran. the proliferation security initiative started under the bush administration and they are back >> the denial of access to our monetary system being in the upper echelon of one of those sanctions, agreed? >> yeah, i am not trying to make fine distinction but i would say that is more in the category of
economic sanctions. >> mr. suzbin, describe for us the difference between normal sanctions, lesser sanctions, and super charged sanctions. >> i would be happy to. i didn't mean to coin a new term and certainly not that term. >> when i was in high school, super charging meant something different, but go ahead. >> what i meant was to refer to the reach of a targeted sanctions. if we target the democratic congo that binds u.s. banks and companies and foreigns can do business as long as they keep it through the u.s. when it comes to iran, what congress did was to say no, anyone who does business anywhere around the
world, in whatever currency, with an iranian actor that is on the black list, faces a potential cut off from the u.s. financial system. that is what i was referring to as these greatly augmented sanctions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> at this point in the hearing, members of the house foreign affairs committee continue to question the witnesses including whether iran has access to the u.s. financial system and if the u.s. can levy new sanctions against iran under the current nuclear deal. you can see all of the hearing at cspan.org. c-span's "washington journal" live every day. crimical director from the american progress center joins us with sentencing reform and correction act.
and frank buckley will be on to talk about his new book which details how american's ability to move up the economic ladder has been hampered over the last several years and what can be done to reverse that trend. be sure to watch washington journal beginning live at 7 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. this memorial day weekend, booktv features three days of non-fiction books and authors. on saturday at 10 p.m., amy goodman interviews tamara drought about her new book sleeping giants. at 10:15 eastern on sunday, an interview with publisher and chief of one world and discusses his professional duties and the work of the award winning book between the world and me.
and sunday evening, a book release party for steve hilton and his book more human; designing a world where people come first. he is a former senior advisor to david cameron argues we need to redesign our economic and political systems to meet the needs of america today. and on monday, an extra day of booktv with books on the life of thomas jefferson. go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. the state department's acting coordinator for counterterrorism testified about isis and oubt extremist groups. and then we talk about international drug tic